Rhodesia, what happened really (view, move, cons, pros)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not convinced the former Rhodesian leader was a necessary racist in the true sense of the word. He was paternalistic in his approach and very old school in thought and practice.
I recall him stating that he never locked his door. No idea if true or false. I do recall a number of Zimbabweans living down in South Africa (African origin) claiming to miss the former times when felt safer and more secure.
Just because Mugabe's regime was such a train wreck, that non-Whites started saying certain things were better under Ian Smith, doesn't mean times were good back then.
Ian smith and the white rhodesians built the best society in Africa. The bread basket of Africa. They wanted a slow transformation to majority rule but they knew that the people were not ready for that. Zimbabwe is working out well though so I guess it didn’t matter
What people weren't ready for majority rule? Who wasn't ready, and why? Thousands of members of the Black majority were getting university degrees abroad during the war, as well as before the war, preparing to run the country after the war was over. It's not as if people weren't educated and capable.
Just because Mugabe's regime was such a train wreck, that non-Whites started saying certain things were better under Ian Smith, doesn't mean times were good back then.
Surely it points towards things indeed being better for a lot of people though? The mass killings/suppression of the minority tribe an example.
That does not mean people were treated with equality. Plainly that was not the case. I suspect Smith and his supporters had at best a paternalistic approach to the majority. But far less oppressive than down South in RSA.
What people weren't ready for majority rule? Who wasn't ready, and why? Thousands of members of the Black majority were getting university degrees abroad during the war, as well as before the war, preparing to run the country after the war was over. It's not as if people weren't educated and capable.
I suspect it was simply not a matter of being in possession of a degree. There was numerous favours requiring repayment. Many of those ideal for fighting against the regime, not necessarily so good at running a country. Then tribal hatreds and so on. It takes time to build up a civil service and essential positions needed to run a country. Many of the white minority had vacated the country, who previously held those positions. Hence a hard call for anyone, to suddenly attempt to replace.
Ian smith and the white rhodesians built the best society in Africa. The bread basket of Africa. They wanted a slow transformation to majority rule but they knew that the people were not ready for that. Zimbabwe is working out well though so I guess it didn’t matter
First time I have heard it was working out well. Unless meant in a tongue of cheek sort of way? (which must be the case)
I suspect it was simply not a matter of being in possession of a degree. There was numerous favours requiring repayment. Many of those ideal for fighting against the regime, not necessarily so good at running a country. Then tribal hatreds and so on. It takes time to build up a civil service and essential positions needed to run a country. Many of the white minority had vacated the country, who previously held those positions. Hence a hard call for anyone, to suddenly attempt to replace.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. There were scads of university-educated people in the UK, US,Canada and Russia, as well as in various countries around Zimbabwe. There were scads of high-school educated people at home. Education was (and is) a strong value in Zimbabwean culture.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. There were scads of university-educated people in the UK, US,Canada and Russia, as well as in various countries around Zimbabwe. There were scads of high-school educated people at home. Education was (and is) a strong value in Zimbabwean culture.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying a black elite was being established abroad during the Rhodesia Crisis? There were certainly future leaders attending educational establishments in Soviet Union , probably East Germany and a host of Warsaw Pact countries, Cuba and so on. But just how many would that entail I wonder.? While I recall Rhodesia having the so termed best education system in Africa for the majority, it was still two tier. Just how qualified would most these be to take over the roles of the departing white population.? Many whites did attend university in England especially, but don't see how majority race could afford to echo that.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying a black elite was being established abroad during the Rhodesia Crisis? There were certainly future leaders attending educational establishments in Soviet Union , probably East Germany and a host of Warsaw Pact countries, Cuba and so on. But just how many would that entail I wonder.? While I recall Rhodesia having the so termed best education system in Africa for the majority, it was still two tier. Just how qualified would most these be to take over the roles of the departing white population.? Many whites did attend university in England especially, but don't see how majority race could afford to echo that.
Yes, to the bolded. Very much so. There's a big missing piece in your scenario. Of course the UK and other Commonwealth countries made a concerted effort to offer student visas to Black Zimbabweans during the "crisis", as you call it. The US State Department did the same; it created a program whereby wealthy individuals willing to sponsor students (=offering room and board in their homes, and university tuition) could register as sponsors with the US Embassy in "Salisbury"/Harare. These were people like the Nordstrom family in Seattle, and others like them around the US.
There was an international effort to help foster a Black elite for when the war finally ended and home rule began. Unfortunately, things took an unexpected turn after Mugabe came to power, and many of the members of that elite ended up staying abroad, though some did go home.
I understand the logic for whether the elite of one country looks like the majority. There are ideological reasons for this. Anyone that thinks having an elite that overwhelmingly looks like the majority automatically means the majority will see a better life I think is dilusional.
There are many countries around the world, including in Sub-Saharan Africa, where there is no major difference in looks of the elite and the majority of the population and those societies continue to be oligarchical (a tiny group of really wealthy on top, a mass of really poor people on the bottom and, much worse, no real prospects that things will improve for the majority.)
Yes, you pinpoint countries like South Korea or Japan where the elites and the masses largely look very similar and those societies are wealthy and highly developed. Societies like North Korea also don’t have major divergeances in looks between the elite and the masses, but look how that place is run. For a time it was even instructed to the masses to start eating grass as if they were cows while you know very well elite North Korean never ate grass or even thought about it.
Then there are societies where there is an overall difference. For example, in Latin America very often the elite don’t look like the masses and yet, anyone will be hardpressed to show Latin American countries overall don’t offer a better life to a large share of their population than most developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (there are countries in Africa where there is hardly a difference between how the elite looks vs the masses, then other countries where there is a sharp difference) and in Asia. Oh yes, in many parts of the West they might applaud more the case of countries like Guinea than Brazil despite the fact Brazil has a higher life expectancy, is wealthier and more developed, and overall has a better future than Guinea. They might applaud Equatorial Guinea when by all accounts Costa Rica is a better country.
Personally, I don’t think having an elite that largely looks like the masses means a better life for the masses. This goes on a case by case basis. What I see is that often countries with elites that on average look like the masses become nothing more than a society with a tiny group on top, an impoverish mass at the bottom and no real prospects for things to improve for the masses. This appears to be more the norm than the exception.
More than looks (which is banal to boot), more important are the predominant intentions within the elite. If the elite isn’t dominated by ideas of advancing the well being of the country as time goes on, of creating a middle class from the now poor masses, of maintaining political and economic stability, etc; it doesn’t matter how the elite looks, those things will not happen.
Does anyone truly think the average people of say the Central African Republic actually have better prospects than the people of Panama? I would think if given a chance, the masses of the Central African Republic would choose for their country to be more like Panama than Panamanians wishing their country was more like the Central African Republic. The average Ethiopian would not object if their country was more like Chile, but Chileans would object if their country was more like Ethiopia. The average Nigerian would not object if their country had the power and standard of living of the United States than the average American wishing their country was more like Nigeria. None of that has to do with whether the elites of all these places look like the masses.
I understand the logic for whether the elite of one country looks like the majority. There are ideological reasons for this. Anyone that thinks having an elite that overwhelmingly looks like the majority automatically means the majority will see a better life I think is dilusional.
There are many countries around the world, including in Sub-Saharan Africa, where there is no major difference in looks of the elite and the majority of the population and those societies continue to be oligarchical (a tiny group of really wealthy on top, a mass of really poor people on the bottom and, much worse, no real prospects that things will improve for the majority.)
Yes, you pinpoint countries like South Korea or Japan where the elites and the masses largely look very similar and those societies are wealthy and highly developed. Societies like North Korea also don’t have major divergeances in looks between the elite and the masses, but look how that place is run. For a time it was even instructed to the masses to start eating grass as if they were cows while you know very well elite North Korean never ate grass or even thought about it.
Then there are societies where there is an overall difference. For example, in Latin America very often the elite don’t look like the masses and yet, anyone will be hardpressed to show Latin American countries overall don’t offer a better life to a large share of their population than most developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (there are countries in Africa where there is hardly a difference between how the elite looks vs the masses, then other countries where there is a sharp difference) and in Asia. Oh yes, in many parts of the West they might applaud more the case of countries like Guinea than Brazil despite the fact Brazil has a higher life expectancy, is wealthier and more developed, and overall has a better future than Guinea. They might applaud Equatorial Guinea when by all accounts Costa Rica is a better country.
Personally, I don’t think having an elite that largely looks like the masses means a better life for the masses. This goes on a case by case basis. What I see is that often countries with elites that on average look like the masses become nothing more than a society with a tiny group on top, an impoverish mass at the bottom and no real prospects for things to improve for the masses. This appears to be more the norm than the exception.
More than looks (which is banal to boot), more important are the predominant intentions within the elite. If the elite isn’t dominated by ideas of advancing the well being of the country as time goes on, of creating a middle class from the now poor masses, of maintaining political and economic stability, etc; it doesn’t matter how the elite looks, those things will not happen.
Does anyone truly think the average people of say the Central African Republic actually have better prospects than the people of Panama? I would think if given a chance, the masses of the Central African Republic would choose for their country to be more like Panama than Panamanians wishing their country was more like the Central African Republic. The average Ethiopian would not object if their country was more like Chile, but Chileans would object if their country was more like Ethiopia. The average Nigerian would not object if their country had the power and standard of living of the United States than the average American wishing their country was more like Nigeria. None of that has to do with whether the elites of all these places look like the masses.
This is an odd write-off of all the people who were full of hope for their country, when they went to the "West" and east to prepare for liberation. Perhaps it was a mistake for an earlier poster to refer to them as an "elite". They were just people getting college degrees of various sorts, so they could take over the operation of the mines, the banking, the management of the agricultural sector, the university, and other institutions and public and private sectors. Do we call our college grads members of an "elite"? I think the terms has a negative connotation that can give a mistaken impression of what was really going on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
